Stewart went to Motts' car repair shop and offered to help
repair a gas tank. Stewart ended up getting burned in a gasoline fire. He sued.
The Trial Court found for Motts. Stewart appealed
Motts successfully argued that gasoline is inherently
dangerous, and Stewart knew the risks when he offered to help.
The Trial Court found that although Motts owed Stewart the legal duty to provide reasonable
care. But even when taking reasonable care, sometimes people get
hurt by dangerous substances.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court found that reasonable care is always required, but the care
that is "reasonable" varies with the danger involved in the act and is
proportionate to it.
Basically, different situations require different levels
of care, but the level of care required is also what would be reasonable
for the particular set of circumstances.
However, accidents occur even when reasonable care
is taken. The Court found that courts shouldn't require a higher standard of care beyond
"reasonable."
This ruling represents the majority view of what level of
care is required. However, other courts have found differently.
For example, in Wood v. Groh (269 Kan. 420, 7 P.3d
1163 (2000)), the Kansas Supreme Court found that extraordinary care is required
when the danger is great.
